THIRUNAVALUR SUB INSPECTOR vs NAGAPPAN — 554/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,354,506(2)IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKA100026182025

e-Filing Number

06-05-2025

Filing Number

2614/2025

Filing Date

17-Jun-2025

Registration No

554/2025

Registration Date

19-Jun-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Courts, Ulundurpet

Judge

23-Judicial Magistrate II

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

196

Police Station

Thirunavalur P.S

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,354,506(2)IPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THIRUNAVALUR SUB INSPECTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAGAPPAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: C.C. 554/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Ulundurpet acquitted both accused persons—Nagappan and Bhoomadevi—of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, and 506(ii), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified fatal defects in the prosecution's evidence: witness accounts contradicted each other regarding injury locations and weapons used; medical examination found zero external injuries despite claims of violent assault with an iron hoe; crucial investigation documents (mahazar and rough sketch) were fabricated with witnesses denying their signatures; the alleged weapon was never seized; and the victim's credibility was compromised by underlying family animosity related to her husband's alleged illicit relationship with the female accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate II

  4. 22-May-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate II

  5. 18-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate II

  6. 15-May-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate II

  7. 13-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  8. 13-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate II

  9. 11-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  10. 07-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  11. 29-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  12. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  13. 08-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  14. 01-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  15. 26-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  16. 26-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  17. 23-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  19. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  20. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  21. 04-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate II

  22. 28-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate II

  23. 21-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate II

  24. 07-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate II

  25. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  26. 26-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  27. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate II

  28. 21-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate II

  29. 03-Nov-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate II

  30. 15-Oct-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate II

  31. 14-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate II

  32. 06-Oct-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate II

  33. 30-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate II

  34. 19-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate II

  35. 19-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 17-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 554/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C. 554/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Ulundurpet acquitted both accused persons—Nagappan and Bhoomadevi—of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, and 506(ii), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified fatal defects in the prosecution's evidence: witness accounts contradicted each other regarding injury locations and weapons used; medical examination found zero external injuries despite claims of violent assault with an iron hoe; crucial investigation documents (mahazar and rough sketch) were fabricated with witnesses denying their signatures; the alleged weapon was never seized; and the victim's credibility was compromised by underlying family animosity related to her husband's alleged illicit relationship with the female accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case